Why It’s Unconstitutional

Special Committee for Security Legislation in the House of Councillors passed new security bills on Thursday, which had been criticized as unconstitutional, during lawmakers of the leading and opposite parties were colliding around chairman’s desk like uncontrollable mob. The bills were submitted to plenary session of the House and waiting for final votes as early as today. People kept on chanting that the bills were unconstitutional around the Diet building.

Prime Minister Shinzo Abe reiterated that the bills were not unconstitutional because limited exercise of collective self-defense would be staying within a conceptual framework of past interpretations of the Constitution of Japan. He raised an official opinion of the government in 1972, which the Cabinet led by Kakuei Tanaka submitted to the Diet.

The 1972 opinion recognized that Japan could exercise necessary and minimum military power for protecting people’s rights, when Japan was offended. It also determined that Japan can exercise individual self-defense right even under Article 9 of the Constitution. But, the opinion concluded that Japan could not exercise collective self-defense right to protect foreign country that was attacked.

Raising the 1972 opinion, Abe Cabinet decided new interpretation that the Constitution allowed limited exercise of collective self-defense when obvious danger of threatening existence of state and undermining people’s right was reaching. But, three professors on constitution study opposed that new interpretation in a testimony in June. They argued that interpretation by Abe Cabinet did not cope with conclusion of the 1972 opinion and undermine legal stability of the Constitution of Japan.

Once new interpretation was denied by experts, Abe administration brought plan B to discussion in the Diet. It was a judgment of the Supreme Court in 1959, called decision in Sunagawa Incident, which allowed Japanese government to take necessary measures for protecting the country. However, a former judge of the Supreme Court firmly opposed to the interpretation. “It is fundamentally hard to recognize that the Supreme Court at that moment noticed collective self-defense force,” told former Judge, Shigeru Yamaguchi.

That was all of what Abe administration raised as causes for exercising collective self-defense. It made no further explanation why their reinterpretation was constitutional. After all, Abe is going forward with no informed consent from the public to a way that Japan abolishes its fundamental concept for a peaceful nation.

Overnight Struggle for Bills

The Special Committee for Security Legislation of House of Councillors could not make final discussion over new security bills Wednesday night. While the leading parties, Liberal Democratic Party and Komeito, tried to make votes for the bills, the opposites, Democratic Party of Japan, Innovation Party and Japan Communist Party, blocked opening the committee. Around the Diet building was a vast number of people against the bills with the message of “Don’t destroy Constitution.”

The committee held a regional hearing in Yokohama, which was set as routine process for legislation of any important bills. A witness nominated by the leading parties, Toshiyuki Ito, a former officer of Marine Self-defense Force, told that new security bills were to enhance deterrence and disturb intention of other countries attempting to change status quo. While he indicated China as a possible target, the bills themselves proved to be not working for deterrence against China. Government of Japan simply expects that United States will help Japan, if Japan passes the bills.

Witnesses for the opposite parties stressed on constitutionality. “The Diet is not where giving the government a blank check. It will lose its raison d’être, if it passes the bills. It will not be a democracy, but a simple majority,” told a lawyer, Mizukami Takahisa.

When Chairman of the Committee, Yoshihisa Konoike, was leaving the building for testimony in Yokohama, people surrounded his car and tried to block him getting back to the Diet in Tokyo, where he was planning to make final discussion over the bills. After escaping the mob and arrived at the Diet, Konoike realized that the members of opposite parties were gathering committee room to block the discussion.

Meeting of ranking members to talk about procedure in the committee extended to late at night. The opposite parties argued that schedule of final discussion set by arbitral decision of the chairman could not be tolerated. Although Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and other ministers were waiting for the start in the committee room, the decision whether the committee should have final discussion were postponed to Thursday morning.

Abe wanted to achieve as many consent as possible for the bills, being afraid of erosion of his political basis, because losing popularity might affect his next agenda, constitutional amendment. But, it is obvious that the bills are insufficient to fulfill requirements of the Constitution. Public protest against the bills does not stop growing among students, professors, teenagers, the old, the middle, doctors, nurses, businessmen or housewives. Nevertheless, the administration ignores their voices. It takes its toll.

Firm Oppositions in Testimony

The Special Committee for Security Issue in House of Councillors held a hearing from five experts on new security bills in Tokyo on Tuesday. While two scholars named by the leading parties supported the necessity of the bills, four people representing opinions of the opposite parties firmly resisted the legislative procedure the leading parties was pushing. There came up various reasons to oppose the bills.

Kazuya Sakamoto, Professor of Osaka University and a member of Meeting on Restructuring Legal Basis of National Security that submitted a report for reinterpreting the Constitution last year, represented supporters of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, stressing on necessity of new security legislation. “This is a legislation to drastically reinforce deterrence for safety of our country and enhance ability to contribute to the world peace. It is necessary and preferable in the growingly severe situation surrounding our country,” told Sakamoto. Takashi Shiraishi, President of National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, also supported the bills.

Against those supporters, witnesses against the bills raised various reasons to oppose them. Aki Okuda, one of the members of Student Emergency Action for Liberal Democracy, required abolishment of new security bills in current session of the Diet. “The bills should be dropped, because they could not achieve approval from the public in spite of unusual extension of current session of the Diet to the end of September,” told Okuda.

Scholars on constitution study explained why the bills were not suiting for Japanese policy more academically. “Impassively passing bills which are apparently unconstitutional is to unleash the supreme power free from any legislative regulation, more than a profanation of constitutionalism violating Article 99 of Constitution of Japan that requires respect and protection of the Constitution. It is the starting point of despotism for politicians, who are less than employees of a nation, to ignore the Constitution,” told Setsu Kobayashi, Professor Emeritus in Keio University.

Former Judge of the Supreme Court, Kunio Hamada, indicated distortion of constitutionality in the interpretation of the Constitution by Abe administration. “Changing Article 9 of the Constitution simply with Cabinet decision, that should have been done through amending process, must harm stability of legal interpretation. If one Cabinet can change it, other Cabinets are always able to overwrite it,” told Hamada. Reinterpretation of the Constitution for the security bills is hard to be justified.

Pouring Contaminated Water

Tokyo Electric Power Company started running contaminated water, after getting through purification process, into Pacific Ocean from broken First Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant on Monday. While contaminated materials had been flowing out with uncontrollable underground stream around the plant, TEPCO for the first time began to pour contaminated water, knowing it would not be completely purified. It is hard to understand that the world ignores this unprecedented type of water pollution.

TEPCO calls it “sub-drain project.” The plant has been equipped with a number of wells, called sub-drain, for controlling underground water approaching to the building. New plan was to draw water from sub-drain and pouring it to the sea after removing radioactive materials. If it were successful, TEPCO expects that it can reduce underground stream getting into the plant, mostly three hundred metric tons, by half.

The company has, however, been failing in controlling underground water. TEPCO once started bypassing underground water before it came around the plant last year. But, it turned to be unable to reduce the water flowing into the plant. Experts of TEPCO could not understand how underground water was coming through. As its result, seven hundred thousand metric tons of contaminated water is contained in one thousand tanks built around the plant.

So, next measure was to draw the water from underground right beneath the plant. TEPCO and third party supervisors would measure radioactive level of the water and announce it before flowing to the sea. Although that water would be going through purification system, called ALPS, it is already known that tritium would not be removed. There will be hundreds of thousands becquerels of tritium remaining in one litter of “purified” water.

The most worried are fishermen working around the plant. Although they were strongly against the project, they finally agreed on it, believing a story presented by TEPCO that the water would be completely blocked with new system. But, the fishery around the plant has been fatally damaged with unprecedented level of nuclear accident in the plant. There is no guarantee for them that it will turn to a normal.

The point is whether a power company can control great eco system with artificial equipments invented with various ideas stemming from one purpose of rebuilding nuclear business. A story to block vast underground water by ice wall built in the land with depth of only tens of meters sounds like myth or religion. The world is too busy in discussing serious problem of Syrian refugees to notice unfairness of pouring nuclear materials into Pacific Ocean.

Endless Legal Struggle

As a result of one-month “concentrated” dialogue between national government and Okinawa, Ministry of Defense resumed construction process of new U.S. military base in Henoko district of Nago City, Okinawa. Governor of Okinawa, Takeshi Onaga, declared on Monday that he embarked on the process of dismissing permission of development in Henoko issued by former governor. Distance between Tokyo and Okinawa looks getting wider than ever.

Receiving criticisms on its attitude of listening no voice from Okinawa, Shinzo Abe administration set a dialogue with Onaga starting mid-August, which was closed with no effective conclusion. Okinawa Defense Bureau of MOD restarted setting no-entry zone in Oura Bay, where Henoko coastal area was included. After few weeks of preparation, the bureau will resume boring survey in the seabed of Henoko coast. It will finish the survey in the rest of five points out of twenty-four this fall and step into next stage of actual construction.

Okinawa firmly resisted against zero tolerance of Abe administration. “Right after expiration of concentrated dialogue period, the government restarted relocation effort. They does not regard sentiment of us at all,” told Susumu Inamine, Mayor of Nago city, to the press. “We will accordingly resume the effort on 12^th,” told an officer of MOD to a lawmaker elected from Okinawa, according to a report of Mainichi Shimbun.

As a countermeasure against unilateral decision of national government, Onaga started the process of dismissal of the permission. “We recognized failures in issuing permission,” told Onaga in his press conference on Monday. It is likely that the permission will be void in mid-October, after Okinawa prefectural government hears opinion from ODB for three weeks. Okinawa government regards the process as the biggest exercise of governor’s authority.

The national government is preparing for ordering Okinawa to dismiss its action. It is also likely that MOD will require Minister of Land, Transportation and Infrastructure judge and temporarily suspend Okinawa’s countermeasure. If both sides refuse giving in, one of them may indict another to the court. It will be an endless legal case between the central and a local government.

Extended opposition between Tokyo and Okinawa may send wrong message to foreign nations. U.S. government is worrying impacts of the problem on U.S. troops in Okinawa, while it keeps on supporting Japanese government. China must have closely been watching what is going on in Okinawa. If Japan fails in settling this problem, there will be a significant deterioration in deterrence in southeast islands of Japan.

Explanations Collapsed

Newspapers have indicated the day when the new security bills would pass the Diet as Thursday 17^th. While lawmakers in the House of Councillors are discussing relevancy of the bills in light of constitutionality, focus of the politics is shifting to what happens after the passage. However, discussion between government side including Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and the opposite parties revealed that exercising collective self-defense right would not be necessary to maintain peace and security of Japan and Japan-U.S. security alliance.

In the press conference on May 15^th last year, when Prime Minister’s consultative committee submitted a report about exercising collective self-defense right, Abe explained that exercising the right was needed for rescuing Japanese citizens on an American vessel. “Suppose a conflict suddenly arises in their destinations. Suppose also that attacks is made in the sea near Japan, right when Japanese people who are escaping from where the conflict had occurred are being rescued and transported by our ally, the United States, which has the necessary capabilities to do so. Even in such cases, unless the Japanese nationals themselves were attacked, the Japan Self-defense Forces could not defend the U.S. vessels transporting the Japanese nationals. This is the current constitutional interpretation,” told him. On his back was a drawing of a mother embracing a baby on U.S. vessel heading from Korean Peninsula to Japan. People must have thought that collective self-defense was needed to help the Japanese in such a situation.

Explanation is different now. Minister of Defense, Gen Nakatani, started saying that JSDF can defend a U.S. vessel without Japanese citizens. “Whether Japanese are boarding is not an absolute condition,” Nakatani answered to a question in House of Councillors. While Abe has been stressing that exercise of collective self-defense would be strictly limited to few cases such as what he raised last year, Nakatani’s idea was genuine and full-fledged collective self-defense. Abe’s explanation was collapsed.

Another example Abe raised was removing floating mines in Hormuz Strait. Abe has been insisting that existence of Japan would be threatened, if Hormuz Strait had been blocked, because of Japan’s dependence on petroleum in Middle East. Everybody knows that Japan has ample reserve of crude oil. It is ridiculous to suppose that some states in Middle East dependent on oil exporting would clock the strait. Abe and his staffs eventually ceased raising the example of Hormuz Strait.

So, what is collective self-defense needed for? All examples Abe raised were proved to be unnecessary. That is why the people suppose something.  “It is needed for his personal delusion that Japan and his families including his grandfather, former Prime Minister Nobusuke Kishi, has been defamed by ‘post-war regime.’”

Camouflaging Supporters

Two leading parties, Liberal Democratic Party and Komeito, seems to be split over newly proposed refunding system for consumption tax. While LDP lawmakers were overwhelmingly willing to introduce the system, Komeito was sharply opposing to the system requiring dismissal. As long as their process for approving new security legislature or other important issues, however, this noisy argument should be a ceremony they need to pass through to disguise their supporters.

Ministry of Finance submitted a draft of new tax refunding system to both leading parties earlier this month, which would be introduced with consumption tax hike in 2017. Although the ministry tried to camouflage the system as reduced tax rate, naming it Japanese Version of Reduced Tax System, it was nothing but a refunding system for consumers with flat tax rate of ten percent.

Lawmakers of Komeito, which upheld introducing reduced consumption tax rate mainly for daily goods and foods as campaign promise, were furious on the idea of refunding. In an inner meeting of the party on Friday, Komeito lawmakers accused their leadership, demanding dismissal against the plan. “Scrap is scrap, unable to be casted into iron. If the party leaders for tax policy cannot scrap the plan, they need to step down,” told one lawmaker in the meeting.

Supporters of Komeito are mainly the people with lower income. It is more than obvious that universal consumption tax hike will directly damage those people. While consumers have to lose their money until it will be refunded someday in the refund system, they do not have to pay for additional tax rate, for daily foods at least, in the reduced tax system. Komeito lawmakers are afraid of disappointment of their supporters on weakness of the party against bureaucrats.

But, some of party leaders were said to have been involved in the process of architecting that refunding system. Vice-president of Komeito, Kazuo Kitagawa, secretly accumulated meetings with LDP leaders and bureaucrats with MOF, kept on hearing the opinions of his colleague in the inner meeting. Since Komeito leaders have assessed the refunding system as the baseline acceptable for their supporters with low income, they cannot reject the proposal from MOF.

Kitagawa played a role to keep connection between those two parties in the discussion over new security legislation, which was sharply criticized as unconstitutional. It is likely that Komeito lawmakers will be persuaded with some nominal reasoning, as long as the party keeps the card of leaving coalition with LDP. For serious supporters of Komeito, internal quarrel between lawmakers may look like a soap opera.